Clinical Guidance on Implementation For the Identification of Students Suspected of Having a Specific Learning Disability MASP Representatives Lisa Backman MS NCSP, RSU #14 Windham/Raymond Schools [email protected] Ruth Crowell, MA ABSNP, MDES LLC & RSU #14 [email protected] Susan Holinger MS NCSP Maranacook Schools [email protected]
Objectives Develop a thorough understanding of Maines new Specific Learning Disability (SLD) Regulations Become familiar with the New SLD Eligibility Form Learn to identify patterns of strengths and weaknesses Practice using the new SLD criteria with sample cases Before We Start, Consider What is a Specific Learning Disability? What is not a Specific Learning Disability? Specific Learning Disability Definition (MUSER VII.2.L)
The term means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. Specific learning disability does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing or motor disabilities, or intellectual disability, or emotional disturbance or environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage. Remains unchanged How did we get here? Weve been here before
2004 federal changes allowed states to choose between 3 models of determining eligibility for SLD Discrepancy between achievement and general cognitive ability Cognitive deficits PSW History Many states chose to allow individual districts and/or schools to determine their process Maine chose to create a state-wide process and codified it in Chapter 101 Task Force was established
Cognitive referencing Cut scores Minimal requirement for general ed interventions 2008 Guidance on Implementation (MASP) History 2012 - OSEP concerns with both cognitive referencing and our cutscores Process of legislative change to change Chapter 101 Another working group was formed
DOE MASP MADSEC University of Maine Parent groups History Work group struggled with RTI only Efficacy of comprehensive evaluation
Utility of cognitive information What to call cognitive/psychological processes End result History Reordering of questions Much remains unchanged Question 4 Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) General education interventions (RTI) (4a) Educational performance (4b) Academic achievement (4c) Psychological processes (4d)
Regarding Question 4, the Maine DOE Special Education Required Forms Procedural Manual Indicates: Record data in each category (a-d) under either Verification of Strengths or Verification of Weaknesses as appropriate and consider whether the child shows a pattern of strengths and weaknesses. "This decision should be based on the profile of the child using all sections a-d." Regarding Question 4, the Maine DOE Special Education Required Forms Procedural Manual Indicates: A pattern of strengths and weaknesses should not be confused with the discrepancy model which was based solely on a significant discrepancy between a childs
cognitive function and academic achievement. The childs performance and/or achievement relative to intellectual development remains one of the teams considerations. Regarding Question 4, the Maine DOE Special Education Required Forms Procedural Manual Indicates: This guideline is not meant to encourage use of formulas or a rigid approach to interpreting strengths and weaknesses. Only empirically validated patterns of discrepancy should be considered by teams...it is important to recognize that the new guideline also acknowledges intra-individual differences as a fundamental concept of SLD...
Regarding Question 4, the Maine DOE Special Education Required Forms Procedural Manual Indicates: The only portions of the Maine regulations that provide any guidance for identifying this pattern of strengths and weaknesses are: The requirement in VII (2) (L) (2) (a) (ii) that requires peer reviewed, scientific research documentation, independent of that provided in the test manual, that supports a correlation between the processing problem and the academic deficit. The requirement in VII (2) (L) (2) (a) (iii) that provides a means for measuring the students cognitive ability.
Question # 1: Adequate Achievement 1. Does evidence from multiple valid and reliable sources demonstrate that the child is achieving adequately for the childs age and is meeting Stateapproved grade level standards in all of the areas below? (MUSER VII.2.L(2)(a)(i)) YES NO
Eight Areas of Achievement Oral expression Reading fluency skills Listening comprehension
Reading comprehension Written expression Mathematic calculation
Basic reading skill Mathematics problem-solving Verification Remains unchanged
Assess All Areas of Suspected Disability Documentation of assessment of the students achievement must be provided in all of the areas of suspected learning disability (as identified in the referral documentation) All Data To Be Considered DOE: It is important for the team to consider all available achievement data Both according to the students age & grade Multiple Means for Measuring Achievement Evidence from multiple valid and reliable sources may
include: group-normed standardized assessments state-wide or district-wide assessments curriculum-based measures classroom assessments based on state standards Achievement Relative To The Students Age Examples of Standardized Measures: WJ-IV & WJ-IV Oral Language WIAT-III GORT-V
KTEA-3 PAL-II FAR & FAM See Appendix I for list of tests measuring each of 8 areas Age or Grade Norms? Level of curriculum to which student exposed Recently retained K retained student in the fall Retained a year or more ago 9th grade retained in K Student starting school a year a year late 6 fall of K
Appendix I Example Basic Reading Skills WJ-IV: Letter Word Identification Word Attack Spelling of Sounds WJ-IV Oral Language: Phonetic Coding Speed of Lexical Access
TOWRE, WIAT-III, GORT-V, KTEA-3, PAL-II, FAR Best Practices for Assessment Example: Basic Reading Measure letter identification, sight word reading and pseudoword reading. Measure skills in isolation and in context. Measure both accuracy and fluency of each. If the results of one measure are incongruous with the results of other measures, administer multiple measures of that construct. More Appendix I: Best practices for each academic skill More Than One Subtest Many individually administered standardized achievement tests include a single subtest to measure some of the 8
academic areas. Example - WIAT:III: Oral Reading Fluency Important not to base decision on single subtest alone Internally Consistent Subtests within index should be internally consistent If not, then further assessment of the specific skill Example: WIAT-III: Word Reading 10 Pseudoword Decoding - 6 Determining Adequate Achievement No specific cut-off for determining adequate achievement provided in the regulations.
Most standardized tests use standard deviations (SD) A score > 1 standard deviation below the mean (>1 SD
More detail under question #4 Curriculum Based Measures RTI Data, etc. More detail under Question #4 Classroom Assessments Based on State Standards Does not meet = inadequate More detail in Question #4 See Appendix III for detailed guidance on adequate achievement Diverse Cultural/Linguistic Backgrounds
Only age and grade-equivalent scores No normed instruments available Multi-tiered problem-solving approach Analysis of work samples and other performance data See Appendix IV - Assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse children. Case Example of Achievement Sam: 2nd Grade Grade 2 RTI referral; suspected LD in reading Title 1 since K (Fluency Drills, Lexia, SPIRE) 1. Does a specific learning disability exist? (MUSER VII.2.L(2)(g)(i)(I))
YES NO Reading Achievement Data Basic Reading Skills: May - DRA-2: Level 4, early 1st grade (-1.5 yrs.) WIAT-III (Age) Basic Reading Composite 78 SS, 8% Word Reading 5 Pseudoword Decoding - 7 Did Not Meet phonemic grade level standards
Reading Fluency: ORF 12 WPM, 15% (Aimsweb Natl norm) Nonsense Word Reading Fluency 34% WIAT-III Oral Reading Fluency 6 Did Not Meet grade level standards Reading Comprehension: WIAT-III: Reading Comprehension - 87 Written Language & Math Data WIAT-III WRITTEN LANGUAGE COMPOSITE: 80 SS, 9% SPELLING: SS 76 ALPHABET WRITING FLUENCY: SS 81 SENTENCE COMPOSITION: SS 83 MATHEMATICS: WIAT-III COMPOSITE: 115 SS, 84% MATH PROBLEM SOLVING: SS 120
NUMERICAL OPERATIONS: SS 111 MATH CONCEPTS & APPLICATIONS 87% (Aimsweb Natl norm) Meeting grade level standards Earning grade level scores on Benchmarks Case Example of Achievement Sam: 2nd Grade Reading fluency skills Oral expression Reading comprehension Listening comprehension
Mathematic calculation Written expression Mathematics problem-solving Basic reading skill Verification: WIAT-III Total ReadingStandard Score 75 Percentile 5 Basic Reading Standard Score 78 Percentile
8 Written Expression Standard Score 80 Percentile 9 Mathematics Standard Score 115 Percentile 84 Developmental Reading Assessment: 2nd edition: Level 4 Spring oral reading fluency universal assessments, Sam read 12 words correctly in a minute. This score fell in the below average range based on Aimsweb national norms. Her nonsense word fluency assessment also showed average skills (34th percentile).
Learning Report: Sam does not meet many of the reading grade level benchmarks. Sam is meeting grade level math standards. Necessary, But Not Sufficient A finding of low academic achievement is necessary, but not sufficient for SLD identification Poor achievement may be present for a variety of reasons, only one of which is SLD
Question # 2: Lack of Learning Experiences and Instruction 2. If the child is not achieving adequately in all areas, is the underachievement due to the lack of learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the childs age or state approved grade level standards? (MUSER VII.2.L(2) (a)(1)) Verification:
# YES NO 2 Remains unchanged Adequate Instruction
Includes essential components Targets students specific academic weakness Includes general education interventions Accessing Instruction Chronic absences Frequent moves Behavioral/Emotional interference Frequently removed from class English proficiency Is Lack of Instruction the Primary Cause?
Review multiple factors Determine which is primary Question #2: Sam Leveled literacy instruction (LLI) 5 times a week for 30 minutes Daily participation in classroom based strategic literacy group Daily drills for sight words and fluency (4 x week, for 15 minutes) Lexia Reading Program, previously SPIRE Question # 3: Exclusionary Factors 3. If the child is not achieving adequately in all areas, is the childs lack of achievement primarily the result of any of the following factors? Provide evidence supporting each determination in the areas below marked
Verification. Question 3 remains unchanged Primary Cause of Academic Failure? Not asking if the child has one of these factors Asking whether the factor is a primary cause Direct Assessment of Exclusionary Factors Not routinely administered Only if part of referral question Concern arises during the course of the evaluation
Health Data a. Visual, hearing or motor disability (MUSER VII.2.L(2)(a)(iii)(aa)) YES NO Consider: Health screenings, medical records, and
observations Intellectual Disability Data b. Intellectual disability (MUSER VII.2.L(2)(a) (iii)(bb)) YES NO
Consider: Developmental screenings and history, cognitive scores, adaptive skills, and classroom performance data Emotional Disturbance Data c. Emotional disturbance (MUSER VII.2.L(2)(a)(iii)(cc)) YES NO
Consider: Mental health records, social-emotional screenings, disciplinary records, attendance, classroom observations, behavior rating scales, and parent and teacher reports Environmental Data d. Environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage and/or limited English proficiency (MUSER VII.2.L(2)(a)(iii)(dd-ff)) YES NO
Consider: WIDA scores or ACCESS scores, parent/guardian reports, documentation of chronic life disruptions, chronic absenteeism, and observations Question #3: Sam Health Record: Peanut Allergy 2nd Grade Screenings: Passed Vision and Hearing WISC-V Full Scale IQ SS 101 SWIS Data- 1 Minor Office Discipline Referral (running in the hall)
Attendance: 0 Absences, 2 Tardy Primary Language: English Question # 4: Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses 4. Does the child exhibit a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, state-approved grade level standards or intellectual development that is determined by the IEP Team to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, using appropriate assessments? (MUSER VII.2.L(2)(a)(ii)) YES
NO New Portion of SLD Document Old Question #4 Processing 1 1.5 SD
No longer any statistical formulas Not a discrepancy model Looks for patterns in 4 different areas of data: RTI Classroom Performance Achievement Psychological Processing Best Explanation for Underachievement Already identified an academic deficit Already ruled out instructional deficiency Already ruled out exclusionary factors Now are the characteristics of SLD evident
Or - some other explanation for inadequate achievement? What is SLD? SLD is marked by dysfunction in learning, most often in the academic skills arena. That is, the acquisition and development of academic skills is somehow disrupted from its normal course of learning on the basis of some type of inherent disorder or dysfunction (Flanagan, Ortiz & Alfonso, 2013, pg. 241) Lack of Responsiveness to Intervention
Academic Underachievement & Underperformance SLD Pattern of Cognitive & Academic Strengths & Weaknesses Differentiating: Intellectual Disability (ID),
General Learning Difficulty (GLD) & Specific Learning Disability (SLD) Reflect on the differences between Intellectual Disability, General Learning Difficulty and Specific Learning Disability Differentiating: Intellectual Disability (ID), General Learning Difficulty (GLD) & Specific Learning Disability (SLD) The following charts are intended to guide assessment teams and should be considered along with the teams knowledge of the student as well as assessment data.
See Appendix V Reference: Adapted from Flanagan D.P. Ortiz S.O, & Afonso V.C. (2013) Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment: 3rd Edition. Hoboken, NJ Wiley & Sons Characteristics Intellectual Disability General Learning Difficulty Specific Learning Disability Little variance in cognitive ability and processing profile
Little to moderate variation in cognitive ability and processing profile Moderate to high or statistically significant variation in cognitive ability and processing profile All or nearly all cognitive areas = 70 standard score May have normative deficits in one or more cognitive and academic areas
Normative deficits in specific cognitive abilities and processes. Normative deficits in specific academic area(s). Empirical or ecologically valid relationship between cognitive and academic deficits Possible relative strengths in one or more processes or activities that are not highly related to general intelligence such as phonemic awareness simple clerical type tasks or social skills
May have relative strengths in one or more processes or activities Intact functional in many processes and abilities and possible normative cognitive and academic strengths Deficits = 70 standard score in adaptive behavior little variance in performance across adaptive behavior domains May have one or more deficits in adaptive behaviors (but not in all domains)
Minimal to no deficits in adaptive behavior Etiology Intellectual Disability General Learning Difficulty Specific Learning Disability Normative cognitive deficits are explained by genetic conditions, problems during pregnancy, problems
at birth, problems after birth Underlying causes of generally low average cognitive and academic activities are typically not known SLD has a neurobiological basis. The pattern of generally average or better overall cognitive ability and below average performance in related cognitive and academic areas cannot be explained by exclusionary factors
(e.g. poor instruction, social/emotional factors, psychological disturbance, cultural or language differences, environmental deprivation, etc.) although one or more of these factors may contribute to weakened academic performance RTI/MTSS: Intervention and Programming Intellectual Disability General Learning Difficulty
Specific Learning Disability Progress Monitoring (or other performance indicators) demonstrates very slow rate of response/learning, will not meet typical grade level benchmarks in any academic area Progress Monitoring (or other performance indicators) demonstrates slow rate of response/learning, may meet typical grade level benchmarks in some but not all academic areas
Following a comprehensive evaluation and resultant provision of tailored interventions, accommodations, compensatory strategies and/or modifications, Progress Monitoring (or other performance indicators) demonstrates rate of response/learning similar to same grade level peers may approximate or meet typical grade level benchmarks in certain areas Special Education Services
Tier II and Tier III interventions in General Education, Remedial Programs Special Education Services, Remediation Programs, General Education Inclusion (Tier II and Tier III Interventions) Instruction Emphasis: Self-Help Skills, Functional Academics, Social Skills, Self-Esteem Instructional Emphasis: Basic Academics. Vocational Training, Accommodations, Compensatory Strategies, Social Skills and
Self-Esteem Instructional Emphasis: Grade Level Performance, College Preparation, Accommodations, Compensatory Strategies, Self-Esteem, Self-Advocacy, Assistive Technology Multiple Comparisons Used to Identify Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses A. Performance and/or
Relative to Age Relative to State Approved Grade Level Standards Relative to
Intellectual Development Achievement B. Performance and/or Achievement C.
Performance and/or Achievement Methods for Identifying PSW Discrepancy/Consistency Approach: Naglieri Concordance/Discordance Model: Hal & Fiorello CHC Based Operational Definition: Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso & Masolo Hypothesis Testing CHC Approach: Flanagan, Fiorello & Ortiz Cognitive Hypothesis Testing Directly assess cognitive processes empirically linked to
academic achievement Examination of ecological factors Review of treatment validity Pattern of Strength and Weakness 4. Does the child exhibit a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, state-approved grade level standards or intellectual development that is determined by the IEP Team to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, using appropriate assessments? (MUSER VII.2.L(2)(a)(ii)) YES
NO Response To Intervention Verification of Strengths a. Data collected when using a process that is based on the childs response to
scientific research-based intervention, including general education interventions under MUSER Section III. (MUSER VII.2.L(2)(a)(ii)(aa)) Verification of Weaknesses Response To Intervention Are all schools required to implement RTI? Yes. Both Chapter 101 [Sections III(1) and VII(2)L(1)2a(i)] and Title 20-A, Sect. 4710 require that Maine schools establish a system of interventions as follows: "By the school year that begins in the fall of 2012 all school administrative units shall
develop and implement a system of interventions for kindergarten to grade 12 that provide each student who is not progressing toward meeting the content standards of the parameters for essential instruction and graduation requirements with different learning experiences or assistance to achieve the standard. The interventions must be specific, timely and based upon ongoing formative assessments that continuously monitor student progress." Quote from: Frequently asked question on DOE Website http://www.maine.gov/doe/rti/faq.html Response To Intervention The use of RTI strategies cannot be used to delay or deny the provision of a full and individual evaluation to a child suspected of having a disability Need to meet Child Find obligations
May implement RTI during the 45 school day evaluation process Response To Intervention Guidance on Implementation: All districts should have adequate procedures and data to determine if the student is making sufficient academic progress in the eight areas of concern identified in Question #1. Criteria for RTI Use Multiple Data Points
Determining Inadequate Progress Verification of Strengths and Weaknesses in Response to Scientific Research-Based Intervention, including general education interventions Examples of Response To Intervention Data See Appendix VII: Response to Intervention Procedures Appendix VIII: Response to Intervention Sufficient Progress Example: Student Not Closing Gap Words Per Minute Control Group Progress Target Student Progress
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 e -S
0 2 p e -S 7 2 p ct
O 4 ct O 11 ct O 18 ct O
25 Example: Student Closing Gap Words Per Minute Control Group Progress Target Student Progress 45 40 35 30 25 20
15 10 5 0 2 ep S 0- 2 ep
S 7- O 4- ct 1 O 1- ct
1 O 8- ct 2 O 5- ct
RTI for Middle & High Schools Why? Special Education is more costly Labeling an adolescent who may not have a disability Not all students qualify for spec. ed services, leaves them without support Large number of students struggling leads to questions about core instruction and possibly accountability requirements
How? Class within a class, a lab, before- or after-school programs, special elective courses, and co-teaching, may be considered Coordinate efforts across faculty: Teach Self-Monitoring Techniques, Learning Strategies Instruction, How to Use of Graphic Organizers and Study Guides RTI Resources for All RTI Network Articles Virtual Visits RTI Talks with School Leaders: Elementary, Middle, and High School Levels Center on Response to Intervention
http://www.rti4success.org/related-rti-topics/secondary-schools Maine DOE website http://www.maine.gov/doe/rti/ Classroom Performance Data Verification of Strengths b. Classroom performance data.
(MUSER VII.2.L(2)(a)(ii)(bb)) Verification of Weaknesses Performance vs. Achievement "Performance" refers to how the student performs in the classroom. "Achievement" refers to how the student performs on academic assessments Classroom Performance Data Educational Performance:
Performance in academic areas (for example, written literacy skills, math, communication. (MUSERII (3)) as measured through local assessment instruments, rubrics, grade-level standards, etc. as referenced in Question 1 of the SLD form. Classroom Performance Data Each district should have developed means for measuring student progress relative to state approved grade level standards District-wide assessments include: Standards for grade level expectations Cut-off scores for meeting vs. not meeting grade level standards. Identify which of the district assessments measure student progress in each of the eight areas of achievement listed in the SLD document.
Examples of Classroom Performance Data Gather measures of the students educational performance in the area(s) of academic weakness identified in Question #1 of the SLD form (basic reading, reading fluency, etc.) such as: Classroom Work Samples Classroom Participation Samples Homework Assignments Portfolios Classroom Quizzes and Tests Curriculum Based Assessments
Classroom based measures of State Approved Grade Level Standards Considerations When Using Classroom Performance Data Observations Collected by directly observing the student in the classroom setting during instructional activities in the academic area(s) listed in Question #1 May reference the students work samples completed during the observation Work Samples Work products created by the student in the course of instruction Areas of strength as well as areas of weakness should be reviewed
Representative of the students daily work, not an isolated example of strength or weakness. It will be important to include information regarding how this students work samples compare to that of other students in the classroom. Examples of Classroom Performance Data Means for identifying a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in Educational Performance relative to State approved grade level standards: 1. If the student were achieving significantly closer to State approved grade level standards in the area of strength than the area(s) of weakness, then this would constitute a pattern of strength and weakness.
2. As there are no statistical formulae available for determining significance in this matter, the team will have to use its judgment. Examples of Classroom Performance Data Example: A second grade student earns Does Not Meet on measures of State-approved second grade level measures of basic reading and reading fluency. This student earns Does Meet on measures of State-approved second grade level measures of math calculation and math problem solving. This variance in educational performance is consistent with a
pattern identified by research for students with a specific learning disability in reading. Learning Reports/Grades Understand how teachers are grading students. Consider the students grades or other school-wide forms of tracking and reporting student progress: Typically letter grades of D or below Number grades <70 Ratings of limited progress, not meeting standards or below expectations Review students learning reports in the context of other students in their grade level
In contrast, grades noted as above may be considered as strengths Appendix X: An Example of Grading Practices for Standards/Performance Indicators Does your school/district have grading practices? Determining standards-based grades: Score students at the grade level targets, which they are receiving instruction at for learning. Individual student is graded on the skills that has been taught. Take into account: Classroom assessments: DRA2, Teachers College Word List, Running Records, Reading Street Assessments, Everyday Math assessments, grade level common assessments, etc.
Teacher observations In-Class work When determining how to score a skill on a four-point scale, teachers should use credible evidence to determine the score. Does your school/district have grading practices? 2 = Partially Meets The student is making progress towards proficiency on standard/target. There is a level of teacher discretion to determine when a student has received enough instruction to have become proficient or not and then receive a 2. Some examples of when a student can receive a 2: Pre-assessed and the target is something that has been previously taught, possibly at
an earlier grade to the student and the student demonstrates limited understanding or inconsistent performance. Student is actively working on learning the target/standard. A student shows some gaps within the target. Student is making steady and consistent progress towards meeting the target. Student is inconsistently meets target. For example, with sight words, they can identify 10, but the next time knows a different 5 than before. Does your school/district have grading practices? 1 = Does Not Meet The student does not demonstrate proficiency on standard/target. Some examples of when a student can receive a 1: Student has been taught or provided repeated intervention and are
working on standard with no or limited progress If the target is skill-based, instead of giving a 1, grade the standard you are working on for the grade level. For example, a grade 1 student is only rote counting to 24. Grade student a 3 on the kindergarten target instead of a 1 on the first grade target. Middle School Proficiency Based Grading Scale 1.0 The student is unable to demonstrate sufficient evidence at even the basic level of understanding for the concept or skill being assessed. 2.0 The student is able to demonstrate understanding in the foundational basic knowledge (such as key vocabulary) required to achieve proficiency on the concept or skill. Student can demonstrate some of the concepts at a more complex level with assistance, but not independently.
3.0 The student is able to demonstrate complete proficiency in all the targeted skills and knowledge required for the level of complexity (such as analysis) of the standard. All students are expected to reach a level of 3 (proficient) on all standards to ensure they fully understand the concepts and skills they will need to move forward in the content. 4.0 The student is able to independently demonstrate deeper understanding of the concept to a higher level of complexity than required to meet proficiency without being explicitly taught. The student makes inferences beyond what was taught and/or applies new learning in a novel way. Some standards will not have a level 4 option. State-Approved Grade Level Standards Learning Reports, Progress Reports, and Report Cards: Must reflect strengths and weaknesses on grade level standards when credible evidence is used to determine their score
Document areas of strength and weaknesses: Based on the cumulative performance of grade level standards that provide a score for the performance indicator. A score on unit-based learning objectives should not be used as a case for a strength or weakness. Performance Indicators vs. Unit-Based Objectives Example of Performance Indicator Summary Example of Standards Summary: Algebra
Example of Standards Summary: ELA Measuring State-Approved Grade Level Standards Areas of strengths: Score of meets or exceeds on the overall performance indicator for the grade level or grade levels above their enrollment grade Areas of weakness: Score of does not meet for the overall performance indicator at or below their enrollment grade. Score of partially meeting a performance indicator at a grade
level below their enrolled grade. Get To Know Your Experts! District Curriculum Team Members Regular Education Teachers Special Education Teachers: Beginning with the 2016-17 school year, the Maine Department of Education expects to find standards-based academic goals in each IEP it reviews, wherever appropriate. Resource: http://www.maine.gov/doe/proficiency/index.html Achievement Data
Verification of Strengths c. Verification of Weaknesses Achievement data based on summative assessments in the districts core curricula, State assessments and/or published nationally normreferenced assessments. (MUSER VII.2.L(2)(a)(ii)(cc)) The team will consider how the student performs on summative assessments, state-wide assessments, and/or nationally normed referenced assessments that have already been
documented as the achievement deficits noted in Question #1. Achievement Data The team will consider how the student performs on summative assessments, state-wide assessments, and/or nationally normed referenced assessments that have already been documented as the achievement deficits noted in Question #1. Compare the difference between the students achievement in the area of greatest strength and the area of greatest weakness as identified above. Be sure to use similar measures: If using age based achievement norms for measuring the strength, then use age based achievement norms for measuring the weakness
Examples May Include, But Not Limited To Summative Assessments Form of evaluation used to describe the effectiveness of an instruction program or intervention Answers whether the intervention had the desired effect Learning typically assessed at the end of a course of study or annually (at the end of a semester school year) These do not include formative assessments, which is a form of evaluation to plan instruction See Appendix IX for further definitions Examples May Include, But Not Limited To Summative Assessments: NWEA, DRA-2, Lexile scores, assessment data
reflected through the use of an instructional program (i.e. Read 180, end of an Everyday Math unit, etc.) Verification of a strength: Student shows growth toward the documented benchmark for that assessment. Verification of a weakness: Student has been taught with repeated instruction and possible intervention but continues to work on the skill/concept with no or limited progress. Examples May Include, But Not Limited To State assessments: Includes MEA and any other state-wide achievement testing Published nationally norm-referenced assessments: Refers to
individually administered, standardized achievement tests Psychological Processing Data Verification of Strengths d. Psychological processing data from standardized measures to identify contributing factors, including standardized composite scores from nationally normreferenced measures of skills such as, but not limited to, phonological processing, information retrieval and processing speed, language, working memory, long-term memory, short-term memory, auditory processing, visual
spatial reasoning. (MUSER VII.2.L(2)(a)(ii)(dd)) Verification of Weaknesses Psychological Processing Data Specific learning disability refers to clusters of disorders that specifically and significantly impede the normal progress of academic achievement. The specific learning disability is a discrete condition differentiated from generalized learning failure by average or above (>90) cognitive ability and a learning skill profile exhibiting significant scatter indicating areas of strength and weakness.
The major specific learning disability may be accompanied by secondary learning difficulties that also may be considered when planning programming. Psychological Processing Data Cognitive abilities: Comprehension/Knowledge (Gc) Fluid Reasoning (Gf) Short-Term/Working Memory (Gsm/wm) Visual-Spatial Thinking (Gf) Auditory Processing (Ga) Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) Processing Speed (Gs)
Psychological Processing Data Specific neuropsychological processes: Attention Executive Functions Orthographic Processing Cognitive Fluency Rapid Automatic Naming Psychological Processing Data All assessment procedures, as referenced in the achievement section above (page16, Guidance document), apply, Use multiple measures
Assess for consistency of findings Strive for information that reflects a cluster or composite score rather than a single subtest Deficits are considered when cluster/composite scores are <85 Psychological Processing Data A diagnosis identifies the nature of a specific learning disability and has implications for its probable etiology, instructional requirements, and prognosis. Ironically, in an era when educational practitioners are encouraged to use evidence-based instructional practices, they are not encouraged to use evidence-based differential diagnoses of specific learning disabilities.
Summary of Data Question 4 a, b, c and d must all be considered collectively and equally No picking and choosing Data must be consistent and empirically valid If any one (a, b, c or d) does not follow the pattern (PSW), the team must consider the student is not SLD Summary of Data Who collects it? When is it collected? How is it assimilated?
Who reports it? When? Can the LD document be filled out prior to the meeting? Summary of Data Plan ahead!!! Review referral form Step1/Referral IEPs Template provided for regular ed teachers so data is relevant Discussion at team meetings prior to IEPs Staffings Specific Learning Disability Definition (MUSER VII.2.L)
The term means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. Specific learning disability does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing or motor disabilities, or intellectual disability, or emotional disturbance or environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage. Specific Learning Disability Eligibility Form Identify a pattern of psychological processing strengths and weaknesses
Identify a pattern of academic strengths and weaknesses The pattern of psychological and academic strengths and weaknesses should be consistent and related based on scientific research After reviewing the data in each sub-section of Question 4, the team will consider whether the totality of that data reveals a pattern of strengths and weaknesses relevant to the identification of SLD Case Example of Achievement Sam: 2nd Grade Grade 2 RTI referral; suspected LD in reading Title 1 since K (Fluency Drills, Lexia, SPIRE)
Case Example of Achievement Sam: 2nd Grade Case Example of Achievement Sam: 2nd Grade Table 1: WISC-V Composite Score and Percentiles Composite Standard Score Percentile Verbal Comprehension
106 66 Visual Spatial 115 84 Fluid Reasoning
97 42 Working Memory 70 3 Processing Speed 98
45 Full Scale IQ 101 53 Case Example of Achievement Sam: 2nd Grade Table 2: CTOPP-2 Subtest Standard Score and Percentiles Subtest Names
Standard Score Percentile Phonemic Awareness 90 25 Phonological Memory
73 4 Rapid Symbolic Naming 87 19 Case Example of Achievement Sam: 2nd Grade
a. Data collected when using a process that is based on the childs response to scientific research-based intervention, including general education interventions under MUSER Section III. (MUSER VII.2.L(2)(a)(ii)(aa)) Strength in math with average to above average performanc e on universal math
sc reening: MC OMP 50th perc entile b. Classroom performance data. (MUSER VII.2.L(2)(a)(ii)(bb)) Achievement data based on summative assessments in the districts core curricula, State assessments and/ or published nationally norm-referenced assessments. (MUSER VII.2.L(2)(a)(ii)(cc))
Psychological processing data from standardized measures to identify contributing factors, including standardized composite scores from nationally normreferenced measures of skills such as, but not limited to, phonological processing, information retrieval and processing speed, language, working memory, long-term memory, short-term memory, auditory processing, visual spatial reasoning. (MUSER VII.2.L(2)(a)(ii)(dd)) Sam is meeting grade level math standards
WIAT-III demonstrated high average math c omposite (SS 115). c. d. Average to above average sc ores on WISC -V assessments reflec ting verbal c omprehension, fluid
reasoning, and proc essing speed. Oral Reading Fluenc y: Expec ted rate of improvement should be 2.03 words read c orrec t per week, Sams average rate of improvement was 0.16 words read c orrec t per week. DRA-2 Level 4 is below grade level expec tation
Below average sc ores on the total reading (SS 75), basic reading (SS 78) and written language (SS 80) c omposites. Below average sc ores on C TOPP refle c ting phonologic al proc essing defic it (Phonologic al Memory SS 73) and on WISC -V refle c ting working memory defic it (SS 70)
Question # 5: Relevant Behaviors During Observation Relevant behavior noted during the observation(s) and its relationship to academic functioning (MUSER VII.2.L.(2)(f)). The child must be observed in the learning environment (including the regular classroom setting) to document the childs academic performance and behavior in the areas of difficulty. (MUSER VII.2.L(2)(f)(i)) Student must be subject to an observation in their learning environment to document academic performance and behavior in the area of difficulty. Team will document what the observer noted that supports the determination that the student does or does not have a learning disability. Question #5 remains unchanged
Question # 6: Educationally Relevant Medical Findings Educationally relevant medical findings (MUSER VII.2.L(2)(g)(i)(IV)) NOTES: The team will record any relevant medical findings that may bear on the issue of the existence of a learning disability, such as an Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Seizure Disorder, Tic Disorder, Mental Health Disorder (depression, anxiety, etc.), Diabetes, Traumatic Brain Disorder, or other medical condition that might better account for the students learning difficulties. Question #6 remains unchanged Question # 7: Valid and Reliable Assessments
7. Are the evaluations utilized valid and reliable assessments and performed by qualified individuals? (MUSER V.2.C(1)(c)&(d)) YES NO
If NO, provide verification: Question 7 remains unchanged Question # 8: Determination of a Specific Learning Disability 8. Does a specific learning disability exist? (MUSER VII.2.L(2)(g)(i)(I)) YES NO
Question 8 remains unchanged Question # 9: Determination of Eligibility 9. If there is a learning disability, the disability is of such nature and degree that [check one and summarize the basis for that selection in the area marked Summary]:
a. the child requires special education and related services. (MUSER V.2.F(2)) b. it can be adequately addressed through general education interventions and/or accommodations. Summary: Question 9 remains unchanged
Signatures Remains the same Sign in agreement or disagreement Write statement if disagree Case Samples Would your team identify this student with a specific learning disability? Case Study: LB Grade 2nd Parent referral; suspected LD in reading
Current Reading Interventions: Small group with My Sidewalks Program and Lexia Reading Previous Interventions: Levelled Literacy Intervention, Hand Writing Without Tears On grade level in math Teacher expressed concerns with distractibility and lack of work completion Case Study: MP Grade 3 Parent referral; suspected LD in reading Title 1 since K (nonspecific program) Added Concept Phonics for 15 min/day in Jan, 2017
Case study: WC Grade 6 3-year review Principal determined eligibility against recommendation of school psychologist (2012) 2013 3-year was waived, middle school staff wanted new information to inform program Historical data provided Eligible SLD, direct instruction in reading and math Case Study: JD 11th grade parent/student referral
Home schooled prior to grade 8 no early records Currently failing most of his classes Complains of difficulty reading Looked up dyslexia on-line, felt it described him Inconsistent achievement scores Inconsistent processing scores History of migraines, vision issues and frequent absences References See references at end of Guidance document Flanagan, D.P., & Alfonso, V.C. (Eds) (2011) Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Flanagan, D.P., Fiorello, C.A., & Ortiz, S.O. (2010). Enhancing practice through
application of Cattell-Horn-Cattell Theory & Research: A third method approach to specific learning disability identification. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 739-760. Hale, J.B., Flanagan, D.P,, & Naglieri, J.A. (2008) Alternative Research-based methods for IDEA (2004) iswnification of children with specific learning disabilities. Communique, 36(8) 14-17 The Maine State Required Forms Procedural Manual Thank You All for coming today! We hope you found the information helpful. Any questions? Guidance Document is on the MASP website on the Resources page.
MASP e-mail: [email protected]